Is religion inherently dangerous?

[_Mercury]

mercury, the guy who said he'd put a bullet in my head one day, says religion is dangerous.

I rest my case.

The name is Antony Flew (no H).

You mean I personally said this to you or I implied that when the revolution comes you would be up against the wall?

Please point out to me where I said I would personally put a bullet in your head.

[_antishock8]

Flew wrote. “I have for a long time been inclined to believe in an Aristotelian God who (or which) does not intervene in the Universe. . .

I, personally, don't see anything inherently wrong with believing the Universe, or our world, is a result of a causal action (which people like Mr. Flew attribute to a supreme being). But it's a belief. It isn't science. It's philosophy. It's a guess.

And to pass a guess off as valid science, ie, Intelligent Design, is in of itself dangerous because it opens the door to magical thinking. It snuffs out the light of the scientific method that has brought us so much understanding. Getting pissy with people who reject wishful thinking or thoughtful musings as valid science is simply misplaced anger. People can guess at what makes the Universe tick all they want, but if they want validation for their "theory" then they need to do a better job than drawing concentric circles around their premise and then claiming they have themselves a bullseye!

[_antishock8]

And why in the world would anyone besides Ray A know who "Andrew Flew" is? Let's see what I can get on Google....

Try Anthony, you might have better luck. LOL.
>
>
>

True true... Still, Antony Flew... Did you read the NY Times article I linked? It seems to me your ilk is taking advantage of this old man, ghost writing a book for him, and then using his name to gain credibility for their argument. Kinda slimy...

[_Ray A]

Did you read the NY Times article I linked? It seems to me your ilk is taking advantage of this old man, ghost writing a book for him, and then using his name to gain credibility for their argument. Kinda slimy...

I'll get to that, AS, if you give me some time. I've already given a link to his thought since returning to theism in an interview he gave, and I know his thought when he was atheist, as I studied his philosophical writings when I did philosophy at university in 1986.

[Guest]

I don't see how "God did it" is really all that different from Flew's position -- would it be uncharitable to say that his position is "we can't explain how the universe came into existence, therefore God did it, therefore there is a God"? I don't think so.

Yes, that would be inaccurate and uncharitable. Why don't you try reading his book instead of incessantly misrepresenting every theist's position in the most ridiculous manner. Because that is how Dawkins explains our positions for you? This much is clear to me, because you guys are literally mimicking what he says. You probably even think he is the one who came up with the "God of the gaps" phrase.

Here's a statement from Flew himself:

Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

Please explain to me how that is not Intelligent Design.

Save yourself the embarrassment and try reading the actual arguments instead of the quacky misrepresentations of them.

LOL.

And dartagnan, insofar as he adheres to Intelligent Design quackery, DEFINITELY subscribes to a "God of the gaps" argument.

How many times does it have to be explicated that I do not adhere to ID? I just elaborated on this with EA just yesterday in this very thread. Maybe you just don't know what the ID movement is?

Sorry if you don't actually believe in Intelligent Design, but you have definitely said some things on here that are almost indistinguishable from that position*, so I hope you don't begrudge me the mistake. I guess now I should join the other people here who are calling for you to explain exactly what your religious beliefs are, and what line of reasoning led you to them.

*You've said that you hold similar religious views to Einstein, and you say that Einstein "believed the universe had to have been designed by some form of intelligence."

[_antishock8]

Did you read the NY Times article I linked? It seems to me your ilk is taking advantage of this old man, ghost writing a book for him, and then using his name to gain credibility for their argument. Kinda slimy...

I'll get to that, AS, if you give me some time. I've already given a link to his thought since returning to theism in an interview he gave, and I know his thought when he was atheist, as I studied his philosophical writings when I did philosophy at university in 1986.

And I just want to reiterate my original position in this thread that I don't find religion in general dangerous, but rather particular religions and ideologies dangerous. The only thing, for me, that is inherently dangerous about superstition is that it spawns more magical thinking when the world needs the exact opposite; in some cases magical thinking creates systems like Communism and Islam that are ideologies based in supremacism, control, and death. To attribute to religion the lion's share of misery in this world is to misdiagnose the disease for the symptoms.

[_dartagnan]

I, personally, don't see anything inherently wrong with believing the Universe, or our world, is a result of a causal action (which people like Mr. Flew attribute to a supreme being). But it's a belief. It isn't science. It's philosophy. It's a guess.

Of course it isn't science! At least not by modern scientific models. Aristotle argued from teleology, and so does Flew. Who the hell ever said it was verified by the scentific method? You think that isn't a philosophy in itself? Of course it is.

But what I have been saying is that many of Dawkins argumenst aren't science either, but atheists have no problems entertaining these idiotic theories because they serve the same anti-religion agenda that catches their interests.

And to pass a guess off as valid science, ie, Intelligent Design, is in of itself dangerous because it opens the door to magical thinking.

WHO THE HELL IS DEFENDING INTELLIGENT DESIGN??????????????

Good God. You guys have the audacity to look down your noses and pretend I'm an idiot when you're constantly beating the straw. Where the hell has anyone defended ID?

WHERE?

And where the hell is EA to ridicule you for not knowing what the hell it is you're disagreeing with? Oh, I forgot. You're all atheists. You stick together and save your insults for the "other."

It snuffs out the light of the scientific method that has brought us so much understanding.

Which scientific method?

Getting pissy with people who reject wishful thinking or thoughtful musings as valid science is simply misplaced anger. People can guess at what makes the Universe tick all they want, but if they want validation for their "theory" then they need to do a better job than drawing concentric circles around their premise and then claiming they have themselves a bullseye!

Stop pretending you understand the arguments. You haven't even shown that you know what they are, let aone understand them. You just walked in on a conversaton and made your assumptons and started throwing about your indignation filled rhetoric.

Oh, and here is what mercury wrote back in march, after I merely pointed out that Daniel Dennet was speaking on a subject outside his area of expertise:

Its funny how individuals such as yourself fueled the ignorance and hatred of the dark ages. It is individuals such as yourself that called for the final solution. And it will be individuals like you that will call for the violent overthrow of the American government in order to establish a theocratic society.

I can't wait till that day when we can put a bullet in the head of every corn pone faith-based bigot out there when they try to take america "for god". You are one of those individuals.

What a paranoid (Personal attack edited by Liz.). Theocratic revolution!

[_Ray A]

And I just want to reiterate my original position in this thread that I don't find religion in general dangerous, but rather particular religions and ideologies dangerous. The only thing, for me, that is inherently dangerous about superstition is that it spawns more magical thinking when the world needs the exact opposite; in some cases magical thinking creates systems like Communism and Islam that are ideologies based in supremacism, control, and death. To attribute to religion the lion's share of misery in this world is to misdiagnose the disease for the symptoms.

And you might be surprised to know that I agree with you on this point. But I'll finish the article on Flew then comment some more.

There could be some differences on how we interpret "magical thinking". If you think, for example, that Metaphysics is "magical thinking", then we will disagree there.

[_dartagnan]

Please explain to me how that is not Intelligent Design.

Read the question he was asked, and it will be apparent he is referring to teleology, as he said was the scientific method used by the ancient Greeks, particularly Aristotle:

HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?

FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

Francis Collins also said that, "As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan." And yet he dvoted several pages to criticizing the Intelligent Design movement. You really need to read their books and not rely on internet sound bites, to really appreciate their positions.

Sorry if you don't actually believe in Intelligent Design, but you have definitely said some things on here that are almost indistinguishable from that position, so I hope you don't begrudge me the mistake.

that's fine as long as you acknowledge that isn't my position, but I am certain I have not made any biological/DNA related arguments, which is why the ID movement is really criticized for being pseudoscience.

I guess now I should join the other people here who are calling for you to explain exactly what your religious beliefs are, and what line of reasoning led you to them.

Later tonight if I have time. Right now I'm trying to catch up with everyone's responses, while watching football.

[_dartagnan]

You're looking at survival as one isolated person wanting their own survival.

Between Dawkns and myself, I am the only one taking the "observation" step in the scientific method. Now you're criticizing it because it observes only a small group, and not a society at large? Well compare this to what Dawkins offers to support his thesis: nothing. I'm just pointing out that his is not a scientific argument, and nobody here has been able to show otherwise. His hasn't even begun to resemble science, and all you guys have are bald assertions that this is why people are altruistic, because it helps us survive, because Dawkins says so. Neither of you have explained how it helps us survive. As I said, it makes no sense. How does being altrusitic help a species survive? It doesn't even begin to make sense.

I have already shown, from McGrath's observations, that Dawkins application of Universal Darwinism fails before it gets off the ground because he wrecklessly defines the premises as it suits his intentions. He waxes idiotic on sociological, psychological and historical subjects he clearly knows nothing about. Thi is why some atheists are his strongest critics. His arguments are a joke, not science. Reasserting them as scientific doesn't make them so.